Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Journalists decry Facebook experiment's impact on democracy

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 144 posts

Re: Journalists decry Facebook experiment's impact on democracy

#71

Post by smadge »

cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #69

This tells more about the journalists than Facebook. Facebook has always been the same. It's journalists who sold their soul so that they can make money. Furthermore, it's funny hearing this hypocrisy coming from journalists, since they are the ones who are throwing away their "journalistic integrity" to make money. It's impossible to come across a mainstream publication with unbiased point of view nowadays. They hav…

The thing about rational actors is that their options are severely limited by the market. The publishers only choice is to follow the money and play the game or perish. And of corse complain about it.

Re: Journalists decry Facebook experiment's impact on democracy

#72

Post by edejong »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #36
cwperkins wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly this - when did Facebook become a platform for everyone I'm associated with to blurt their opinions. I think there needs to be another forum because the only thing I am interested in using Facebook for is to catch up on my friends doings. Weddings, vacations, etc.

It philosophically transitioned away from the "personal friend update feed" to the "hub of all social networking on the internet" a few years ago. I just kind of realized that happened in the last few months and it wierds me out. What used to be personal stuff between friends and family, they want you to share with everyone.

Key takeaway is: what you think is personal stuff on a social site, never really was to begin with.

Re: Journalists decry Facebook experiment's impact on democracy

#74

Post by gt_ »

medfok wrote: post #67
malvosenior wrote: post #3

Why don’t these publishers band together and launch their own news aggregator if they think that’s something people want? I don’t see Facebook owing them a platform here and from a personal perspective politics can’t be removed from my _social_ feed fast enough.

If you construct a community resource, you have a responsibility to the community. This transcends business interest, which is illegitimate and immoral. If you want to be a part of my life you need to be responsible.

As things stand, Facebook has no responsibility beyond those required by law and market. This is not an endorsement of anything, but a reminder of the reality.

Re: Journalists decry Facebook experiment's impact on democracy

#75

Post by SomeStupidPoint »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #65
datawarrior wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Facebook's product was manipulated and helped Donald Trump get elected No the ads in question were almost universally pro-Clinton. You might wish to leave your echo chamber for a while http://theduran.com/facebook-fail-russian-ads-were-actually-... http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-25/leaked-descriptions... https://www.thedailybeast.com/russian-propaganda-pushed-pro-... A handful of them were pro-Sanders and St…

Speaking of echo chambers, your first source is an article about your second source. None of them support your conclusion that the ads were "universally pro-Clinton."

It's also irrelevant: nominally pro-Clinton ads can be used to generate net Trump support, and we'd have to have a way more involved discussion of PSYOPs to see if the two statements were in conflict.

Of course, green account with pro-Trump talking points of questionable content might very well be a propaganda account.

Re: Journalists decry Facebook experiment's impact on democracy

#76

Post by jeffdavis »

gt_ wrote: post #74
medfok wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you construct a community resource, you have a responsibility to the community. This transcends business interest, which is illegitimate and immoral. If you want to be a part of my life you need to be responsible.

As things stand, Facebook has no responsibility beyond those required by law and market. This is not an endorsement of anything, but a reminder of the reality.

No, they have no legal responsibilities beyond those required by law.

If they behave unethically we can certainly complain about it, and possibly take some kind of action if we feel strongly enough (e.g. boycott).

Re: Journalists decry Facebook experiment's impact on democracy

#77

Post by interfixus »

My visits to Zuckerberg-land are few and getting fewer. Mainly to pick up the occasional personal message and redirect it to a more civilized channel. And when I visit, I am heavily insulated by various sorts of filters - I never see ads or silly recommendations.

So clearly, I'm in a bubble, and my ignorance is self-wrought, but honestly, I never get it when there's talk about people reading news - fake or otherwise - on Facebook. How do you even do that? Why would anyone? What am I missing? If I ever did see a news item there, my first instinct would be distrust, my first potential reaction would be seeking out some external source, and if none could be found, absolute dismissal.

Two billion users do realise FB is nothing but a cheap, tacky marketing ploy, yes? They do, don't they? Please!

Re: Journalists decry Facebook experiment's impact on democracy

#78

Post by rtpg »

smadge wrote: post #71
cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #69

This tells more about the journalists than Facebook. Facebook has always been the same. It's journalists who sold their soul so that they can make money. Furthermore, it's funny hearing this hypocrisy coming from journalists, since they are the ones who are throwing away their "journalistic integrity" to make money. It's impossible to come across a mainstream publication with unbiased point of view nowadays. They hav…

The thing about rational actors is that their options are severely limited by the market. The publishers only choice is to follow the money and play the game or perish. And of corse complain about it.

I bet there are some good opportunties for some concentrated journalism that people will find interesting enough to build a "proper business" untainted by as much advertising. The success of patreon has me believe that you could probably get enough rich people to pay (say) $50/month for a news source that feels less of a need to pander.

I don't want to be too dismissive, but even though I like the coverage I get from the NY Times, I'm still financing a bunch of think pieces on the fashion industry, their cooking apps, "78 hours in X" articles, movie reviews, Bret Stephens op-eds, "Republicans place doubt on Hillary for X"-style both sides pieces, etc.

I mean, sure, journalism. And its a big outfit, we don't all need to be writing about the opiod crisis. But I would like to think there's a market.

Bonus points if you make this and get a rich person to help finance it. The subscription can help ease the losses whatever billionaire ends up taking. Medium is already kinda this.

Re: Journalists decry Facebook experiment's impact on democracy

#79

Post by [deleted] »

cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #69

This tells more about the journalists than Facebook. Facebook has always been the same. It's journalists who sold their soul so that they can make money. Furthermore, it's funny hearing this hypocrisy coming from journalists, since they are the ones who are throwing away their "journalistic integrity" to make money. It's impossible to come across a mainstream publication with unbiased point of view nowadays. They hav…

[deleted]

Re: Journalists decry Facebook experiment's impact on democracy

#80

Post by remarkEon »

interfixus wrote: post #77

My visits to Zuckerberg-land are few and getting fewer. Mainly to pick up the occasional personal message and redirect it to a more civilized channel. And when I visit, I am heavily insulated by various sorts of filters - I never see ads or silly recommendations. So clearly, I'm in a bubble, and my ignorance is self-wrought, but honestly, I never get it when there's talk about people reading news - fake or otherwise…

Narrator: they do not.
Post reply on HN